Disco bashing on jeep sites
- Thread starter no694terry
- Start date
Well cant any engine be a flex fuel engine as long as the fuel delivery, ecu, and emissions can handle the ethanol.
jhmover said:
I'm not sure exactly when they made the change, but I'm thinking that all V8's up to 94' had the steel gaskets and 95' on the use the composit gasket and they also deleted a couple head bolts on each cylinder. I also have a theory about the stretch bolts along with the composite are the problem. When I put the 95' 3.9 in my 92'RRC I used head studs instead of the stretch bolts. They are a pain to pull when they are in the truck, you have to back out all of the bolts with the allen wrench after the nuts are removed.
knewsom said:
I mean that it exceeds the standards for the qualification, even being listed by Ford as a "Leaf and Road" engine. I guess they explored using it at some point. It's been notable in the past for it's ability to take alternative fuels.
Basically, that means that the ethanol, no matter how much I hate it, isn't the cause of the gasket failures. You can pour as much ethanol in there as you want. The engine doesn't give a fuck.
Cheers,
Kennith
I put about 60,000 miles on a 1996 Jeep Cherokee with the inline 6. Damn fine engine. Only problem I had with the Cherokee was a limited slip rear diff that liked to consume itself under warranty.
I put 80,000 miles on my D1 4.0 liter V8. OK engine, definitely needed more TLC than the Cherokee's engine (I didn't need to do a damn thing to that Cherokee engine except have the oil changed every 4-5k miles).
Not overly impressed with the D2 4.6 liter V8.
I put 80,000 miles on my D1 4.0 liter V8. OK engine, definitely needed more TLC than the Cherokee's engine (I didn't need to do a damn thing to that Cherokee engine except have the oil changed every 4-5k miles).
Not overly impressed with the D2 4.6 liter V8.
It's like the smell of a hot M-16. There are other firearms, but none have that smell. It stays with you forever.
Stop you're giving me a hard on....
Stop you're giving me a hard on....
kennith said:
Sorry to break it to you, but one thing they do constantly for us is break. You wonder why our military and those around the world are moving away from Rovers? Because there is a far better option that is far more reliable out there. Do we neglect our training vehicles? You bet we do. Could we replace every weak component with a better aftermarket option so it doesn't? Sure.
Don't get me wrong, I love Land Rovers and most certainly always will, but to think they are the cats ass, be all 4x4 with superior engineering is far from factual.
There are certainly some great design qualities of Land Rovers and their uniqueness and "soul" can't be replicated, but their weaknesses are present in every system of the vehicle - electrical, engine and drive train.
When you can expect just about every DII out there to need a head gasket, that certainly doesn't give you "it will be there" confidence. Blame it on ethanol, poor maintenance, global warming or Obama if you want.
LR has bragging rights for being the the most bad ass vehicles for suburban rappers, but that's about it now.
garrett said:
Land Rovers aren't the best at anything. That's why I like them. They are pretty good at everything. The Land Rover itself has it's weaknesses, and they may have fucked up a good thing here and there with the RV8, but that's not a mark against the design, nor against the ones that they didn't fuck up.
I've never had one not "be there" for me. Not one single time. Even with extreme amounts of abuse over long periods of time, they manage to get me where I need to go as safely as the conditions allow.
The things that this engine has increasingly failed to adapt to as time progressed are the modern electronic systems. You have to remember that this is not a design evolution. It's old shit with new shit tacked on that makes it run like shit in order to pass shit. There isn't anything else out there like that. The RV8 is the last of the old breed, and it does show.
It's been on to many places since it was created, and is the grandfather of more than a few engine designs, but daddy never died. It's a strange story for an engine.
The engine isn't any less useful, it's just come to the point where you just can't make it work anymore without drastic changes, and there are so many new engines out there now, that it's not worth it. The more shit they tacked on and tried to control, the worse it got. It's a testament to the design genius at Buick that it did manage to survive this long.
There is nothing wrong with this engine that an ailing motor industry didn't break on occasion and ruin over time with mandatory equipment. The design is perfectly sound.
Land Rovers themselves are similar. The new ideas tacked all over old technology worked for quite some time, but a lack of experience in actual evolution and development reared its ugly head more and more over the years. They suffered a lack of development and shoestring adaptation, but that doesn't mean they are broken just yet.
As such, not all years are equal. That's the way it is with anything.
I've seen them take the abuse. I know they have it where it counts. They are by no means perfect, but they manage to pull through when you need them to.
If they sucked, I wouldn't own them. I suffer no loyalty on any grounds. I'll switch sides so fast your head will spin if I think I'm better off some other way, or if another way better suits my agenda. They have never let me down.
They have their issues, but those issues aren't terminal. Now, I'll adapt and improve things to no end, but the vehicle was good to start with, if you ignore all the shit you don't need.
Cheers,
Kennith
kennith said:
The AMC 6 cylinder was in production only 2 years less than the buick/rover v8 and had to deal with the same problems up until '06.
Ford Windsor blocks made it from the late 60's to 99, GM kludged more crap on to the small block than anybody to keep it alive for almost 50 years. This isn't a unique problem.
Last edited:
knewsom said:
There is also a difference in the number of head bolts in pre-96 to post-96 motors. The pre-96 have 14 bolts (four extra outer bolts) compared with only 10 bolts on the later ones. According to RPI this is supposed to make the 96 and later heads less susceptible to hg problems than the earlier versions.
http://www.v8engines.com/engine-4.htm#gaskets
My Grand Cherokee has got the 4.7 HO V8 (265hp, 330ftlbs torque) and Quadra Drive (front and rear limited slip). Not exactly a fair comparison to a cherokee or wrangler, but lets be honest they're in different leagues.
The GC is a heck of a lot more powerful/faster. The torque difference is night and day. I also can actually pass cars on the highway. Come to think of it, I give 6cyl 5-series, E-classes, etc a run for their money in a straight line.
The 4wd is better in the Jeep too. Rover T/C is annoying. It seems you've gotta always have momentum otherwise it's not beneficial.
The Rover feels so much more secure off road though. It's got the extra girth and it feels like it has the ability to climb over anything. Suspensions a lot better too.
In summary, a stock wrangler vs a disco vs. a cherokee vs. a cherokee isn't exactly a fair comparison
The GC is a heck of a lot more powerful/faster. The torque difference is night and day. I also can actually pass cars on the highway. Come to think of it, I give 6cyl 5-series, E-classes, etc a run for their money in a straight line.
The 4wd is better in the Jeep too. Rover T/C is annoying. It seems you've gotta always have momentum otherwise it's not beneficial.
The Rover feels so much more secure off road though. It's got the extra girth and it feels like it has the ability to climb over anything. Suspensions a lot better too.
In summary, a stock wrangler vs a disco vs. a cherokee vs. a cherokee isn't exactly a fair comparison
